Tommy Robinson’s Pay-triots, Josh Mcmean + Angry Man Mo Fyaz

This is an encouraging bit of butting of heads within Tommy’s followership; a number of people are voicing concern over what’s being styled as pay-triotism — people within their “movement” who ask for and/or use the “movement”to make money

There could be a number of people who privately have reservations around folks like James Goddard who rattle the metaphorical donation tin online — this is now being vocalised. Josh Mcmean seems to have said it quite well here in his questioning of PayPal links and requests for travel money in this culture of “demoing” (going to demonstrations — not many go to as many as John Lawrence and David Coppin — they do not seem to have much going on in their lives!)

2 videos where Josh Mcmean talks about “Pay-triotism”, James Goddard and Mo Fyaz

Mo Fyaz (Mohammed Fyaz), an angry and bitter sounding chap (who rails against Pakistanis in a perverse, peculiar and repetitive fashion has come under scrutiny) does a bit of “demoing” himself as well as delivering short, repetitive speeches at some events. He even has previous in asking for his travel expenses to be taken care of.

That’s a fair wad of cash there which Mo Fyaz is being asked to show evidence he’s returned as the walk never took place — sufficient funds (£17k) weren’t raised for it to go ahead. I’m sure Mr Fyaz’s bank manager was delighted at this considering he was foolishly entertaining the idea of quitting his day job to train for the walk. I think his feet must be thankful too — a whopping 200 miles!)

Folks are asking questions

James Goddard, a man trying hard to make a name for himself

Apparently he will receive a house for free if a “couple” die before him

There are questions marks around whether he’s returned the £1700 and now there’s speculation around a mysterious £1600 which he received via an anonymous donation shortly after claiming he would be returning the donation money he raised after pressure from online videos. If he has held true to his word of refunding his donors, these unexpected windfalls the Tommy followers will have received may well, in part be due to Muslim pressure and activism. Looks like, strangely, Christmas presents this year could well be due to some Muslim online rabble-rousing!

Talking of rabble rousing, Josh Mcmean is not alone. Seamus Healy has been putting Mo Fyaz’s feet to the fire. He’s even looking into an organisation called Dostana Ministries which Mo Fyaz heads.

Are the “patriots” ever asking for proof donations are being used for their stated purpose? In the case of Mo Fyaz, is there any evidence of Mr Fyaz helping any ex-Muslims with housing?

This is coming from the same person who claimed he wants to use the profits from his books to buy HOUSES (plural) for rape victims — despite previously claiming he wants to use spare money from the profits to buy a new car.

Is there any evidence of any assistance Mo’s provided to ex- Muslims or rape victims?

Do these “patriots” not want to see evidence they are not being taken for a ride by their self-appointed leaders, videographers, Facebook ranters, cheerleaders and rage merchants?

Furthermore, will the peasants revolt on mass at Tommy Robinson doing the same thing (on a much larger scale!) as the likes of James Goddard and Mohammed Fyaz? We know there have been rumblings of discontent already amongst Tommy Robinson’s patrons.

The patriots on the “demoing” scene are quite cult-like around Robinson and the leaders of the “movement” so much so that criticism of Tommy Robinson will leave you de-friended and cast out like a pariah. Redpill Phil, Trevor Coult MC, Lucy Brown and various others won’t be accepted back anytime soon.

Some of the exchanges have been rather school-boyish including mockery of Mo Fyaz’s stutter whilst Mo Fyaz mocks Josh Mcmean’s looks. Putting aside all the infantile stuff, some points of consideration have been raised by Josh Mcmean and his cohorts:

1. Normalisation of asking for and receiving money in the “movement”.

2. The sheer lack of accountability of donations — what are these being used for and is there any proof for accountability purposes concerning the ultimate use of these monies.

4. Using grooming victims for purposes of self promotion, donations or book sales (and other forms of monetisation)

Normalisation of money-taking

Concerning the issues around money, I think this more vociferously applies to Tommy Robinson so the consistent critic would surely have to start asking questions of Tommy. For instance, Tommy’s influx of donations whilst he was in prison would presumably have been from a number of people under the impression they were helping his legal fund to fight the charges he was imprisoned for. It turned out his legal fees were being paid for by an external organisation — The Middle East Forum

Tommy gets paid handsomely each month by Rebel Media (reportedly around 10k a month), why does he need PayPal links and donation links on his webpage when he’s pulling in a hefty salary as well as profits from book sales and other (possible) bits of funding from external organisations?

The peons in the cult of Tommy Robinson in these Facebook echo-chambers will angrily denounce and de-friend anybody raising these points. It’s a lot easier to lambast small characters like Mo Fyaz and James Goddard. Time will tell if people like Seamus Healy and Josh Mcmean will publicly question the figurehead Tommy Robinson.

Using grooming victims for making money, clicks and views

Lucy Brown, former assistant of Robinson, talks about the culture or using people’s rage within the movement — their rage is monetised.

I thought genuinely that I was joining the side that told the truth and I’ve come to realise that it’s not. It’s just about getting [YouTube] views and retweets. This is a business and your outrage, valid as it is, will be monetised as such.

What can possibly be more emotive than street-gang CSE crimes of brown men (many with Muslim names although some have Sikh names) against white children for a bunch of people who already have prejudices against ethnicity and/or Muslims?

Perhaps that’s in part why they won’t offer anywhere near as much the coverage and attention they do for these brown-on-white CSE crimes than those committed by white men such as the child porn problem within the British army (an untouchable group amongst the “patriots”), the issues within the establishment, football clubs and care homes. All that gets put on the back-burner to be forgotten about — if it’s even known.

Considering the “movement’s” considerable financial power, surely using those funds to actively support and work with mosques and various Muslim public speakers who have spoken out against street grooming gangs would be the expected course of actions amongst those who truly want to stamp out Asian street grooming gangs — marching around chanting Tommy Robinson’s name, causing a nuisance to the public (not to mention tax-payers footing the bill for policing them) and emptying their pockets to him isn’t really going to help victims or street grooming gangs nearly as much as a concerted and cohesive effort where communities work in tandem for a common purpose — safeguarding children.

If we want to stamp out problems of child porn in the British army, child abuse in the Church of England, child abuse in sports clubs and care homes we’ve got to work with the groups and institutes to help weed out the problematic individuals within those groups and institutes.

It’s increasingly appearing to be used to channel rage to further clicks, garner attention to their “leaders” to ultimately help the monetisation process. The perspective around the selective outrage is captured by Jim Grace. I’ve reproduced part of one of Tim Fennton’s critiques of Tommy Robinson’s selective outrage over grooming gangs:

“Jim Grace has tallied up all the so-called “grooming gang” cases, showing the numbers of convictions, the numbers of suspects — that’s actual suspects, not people under investigation — along with the number of known victims and the estimated total number of victims. From this, he gets the total number of known victims to be 549. As he points out, there are around 2.8 million Muslims living in the UK.

This gives one known sexual abuse victim for every 5,100 Muslims. Then Grace puts this into a little context. He begins with the approximate number of BBC staff (20,000), and known sexual abuse victims (589). This gives one known sexual abuse victim for every 34 BBC staff. Then, it’s on to the Football Association’s total number of football coaches (25,000) and known sexual abuse victims (849). One known victim for every 29 coaches. As for the Catholic church in Australia, the figures are far worse.

There, the total number of priests and lay staff is around 9,000, and the number of known sexual abuse victims is 4,400. One known victim for every two church staff. In reply to Grace, the Tweeter known as Spooky Head pointed out some examples of “Places where the likes of Tommy Robinson, the English Defence League or Britain First never hassle in their tireless pursuit of exposing child sexual abuse and ‘grooming gangs’”.

There was the Catholic church again, plus the Church of England and the FA. Links to organised drug traffickers, and the infamous Potts family, were included. There have also been several cases of sexual abuse by prominent EDL members, which for some reason Lennon always manages to miss, despite his concerns about it.

None of this is to suggest that some CSE and other cases of sexual abuse are less bad than others; all such crimes are abhorrent. What the figures do show, however, is that if the motivation, as Lennon likes to claim, is “What if it had been your child?”, then his decision to ignore rather a lot of CSE does suggest that he is only doing it as part of an attack on the wider Muslim community.”

Seamus Healy wrote about Mo Fyaz: “This selfish evil man is using grooming survivors to raise his own profile”. I wonder if he’d say the same about other characters in the “movement” including the figurehead himself — Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley Lennon.